User talk:Alexandria Bucephalous

Hello, Alexandria Bucephalous, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Ingenuity were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. We cannot accept articles that are little more than definitions of words or abbreviations as entries. A good article should begin with a good definition, but expand on the subject. You might try creating a definition for this instead at Wiktionary, which is a dictionary. Please only do so if it meets that sister project's criteria for inclusion. These require among others, attestation for the word or phrase, as verified through clear widespread use, or its use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Alexandria Bucephalous/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will make all the necessary changes , thank you for the quick response.

Merci beaucoup, au fait, pour la réponse rapide. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alexandria Bucephalous! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Alexandria Bucephalous! Your additions to 2022 Morbi bridge collapse have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"+1"

Please stop adding tallies to consensus discussions. We're all capable of counting. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrator

The tallies are to show my support to an argument being presented. So no, I will not stop adding them. In case these tallies are against Wiki policies please help me with the page saying so.

Hope you understand,

- Alexandria Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions aren’t made according to the number of supports and opposes but by the weight of the arguments based on policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr CheckUser,

Who judges the weight of an argument Mr CheckUser? Unfortunately on The Wire talk thread we do not have Users who are as knowledgeable as you so we ourselves judge the weight of the arguments being presented.

Thus I put the "+1" to express my support so the weight of an argument can be judged.

I will not stop adding them.

PS: Just as the Administrator above ( who has now gone silent) please help me with the page saying that these tallies are in violation of Wikipedia policy, if you can. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Cabayi (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ChecKUser,

Understood !!!

Will refrain from voting from now on. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that no one here is posting in their role as a CheckUser. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CheckUser

I know that, just wanted to convey my deep respect for all your achievements. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow he’s nuttier than I thought he was. I never claimed to be an archaeologist and I was only a student at LSE whose degrees are from the University of London. That article is riddled with factual errors. I certainly graduated from Yale but in political science and have a Master’s degree from LSE. Note that he doesn’t offer any links to Wikipedia to back his lies. Love the insinuation I’m a pedophile. Hopkins was a real piece of work, really malicious. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria, I really hope I don't have to keep coming back to point you to the policies you're violating. This time it's WP:NPA & WP:OUTING, even if, as Doug says, the article you link to is mistaken. A person's contributions are evaluated against the reliable, verifiable, independent sources they cite, not who they claim to be.

If it's your natural reaction to turn disputes into ad hominem attacks your wiki-career is likely to be short. Play the ball and not the man. Cabayi (talk), writing as an editor, not as an admin, checkuser, oversighter, or arbitrator, 13:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor,

Let us leave worries about my wiki career to me. The point you made is noted . Will familiarise myself with Wiki policies.

PS: I play both the ball and the man. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you recently removed content from Ram Setu (film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Note the alert above. Doug Weller talk 11:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Ram Setu (film) has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Doug,

I corrected the grammar and sentence structure of the plot section. I therefore do not believe my edit summary is inaccurate. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding User:Alexandria Bucephalous/sandbox

Hello, Alexandria Bucephalous. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Alexandria Bucephalous/sandbox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 1988–1992 Norwegian banking crisis

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 1988–1992 Norwegian banking crisis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at List of common misconceptions, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sundayclose,

No. I will not stop adding content to the article.

If you feel that my content was unsourced or poorly sourced, I suggest you research the citations I used. Furthermore, please get a life, sad to see a person who is clearly as intelligent as you wasting their time on a Sunday (pun intended) unnecessarily criticising someone for adding content to an article that is not exactly as important as, say, the article for Vjekoslav Kramer. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least stop edit warring. You will be blocked if you continue. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit war is a just war. Block me if you want. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's collaborative. Even if you know you're right, discuss your edits with fellow editors. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of common misconceptions shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandria Bucephalous: Wikipedia is edited collaboratively. You cannot decide unilaterally that you will "not stop adding content" to an article. You need to convince other editors that you're right. Also, please don't cast aspersions on other editors. An attitude like "my edit war is a just war" doesn't work here on Wikipedia. --Macrakis (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nisha Sharma dowry case

Hi Alexandria Bucephalous! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Nisha Sharma dowry case that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. "Remov[ing] unnecessary details" is typically not a minor edit. [1] Mason (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bucephaward

	For liking horses so much
	Bucephaward Baudshaw (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hi Alexandria Bucephalous! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Ram Mandir that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]